Yep. I hate the idea that something as fundamental as the Bill of Rights is protected via a high-stakes chess game but then it was in 1776 and human nature hasn't changed.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
—
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adams—but I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

So you don't have a case law to back up your assertion that they can make something illegal that was legal, and not compensate for it.....

Just look at New York. They're making something that was legal illegal and not compensating anyone for it. Instead they're giving people a small grace period to sell these items or move them out of state.

Just look at New York. They're making something that was legal illegal and not compensating anyone for it. Instead they're giving people a small grace period to sell these items or move them out of state.

This guy is the reason that I propose a Constitutional Amendment permanently banning ANY author/co-author of ANY legislation found to be in violation of the Constitution.

There should be VERY SEVERE penalties for trying to violate the highest law of our land. These "servants" continually dance around the grey areas of the Constitution, and if they go too far, they just get to try again and again until the courts either allow their transgression or the people run out of money to fight in the courts.

This should be a "one and done" offense. Serving in politics is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT. Using that privilege to violate other's rights should have severe repercussions. I would even suggest that willfully violating the Constitution is a form of treason, but that's a future amendment.

Guys, they aren't going to be able to go door-to-door to collect firearms from people. They don't have enough manpower. And as I have said before, if they start doing no-knocks and trying to get them that way, they are only going to get a day or two before the word gets out and the nutballs start waiting for them to show up. You will have a few violent shootouts, lose some cops, and then the cops aren't going to want to go out and play anymore. Realize just how twitchy some of us gun owners are. Look at how heated debates get on here, and this is just the internet. Imagine what happens if they really do try to take guns in real life. Exactly how many cops do you think are going to be willing to go risk their lives over something that they don't agree with, nor want to deal with, just because some idiot politicians say so? The politicians aren't the ones that will have to drive up to houses out in the middle of nowhere to try and get guns from end-of-the-world types who have been preparing for doomsday for decades. The same type of people who have had years to lay out elaborate plans involving IEDs, drums full of jellied gasoline and prepared positions? Seriously, there are some very scary people out there. And pulling a stunt like this to try and take what they view as their ultimate defense against whatever boogyman they have dreamed up will not go over well. Forget the costs of going to court. Forget the costs of compensating gun owners. Think about the costs of running a few operations like this in terms of political capital. It would be political suicide to be the one responsible for getting that many cops killed. Not to mention you would have a lot of people in law enforcement who wouldn't be all that keen on running these operations. Especially not after the first few go kaboom in their collective faces.

Guys, they aren't going to be able to go door-to-door to collect firearms from people. They don't have enough manpower. And as I have said before, if they start doing no-knocks and trying to get them that way, they are only going to get a day or two before the word gets out and the nutballs start waiting for them to show up. You will have a few violent shootouts, lose some cops, and then the cops aren't going to want to go out and play anymore. Realize just how twitchy some of us gun owners are. Look at how heated debates get on here, and this is just the internet. Imagine what happens if they really do try to take guns in real life. Exactly how many cops do you think are going to be willing to go risk their lives over something that they don't agree with, nor want to deal with, just because some idiot politicians say so? The politicians aren't the ones that will have to drive up to houses out in the middle of nowhere to try and get guns from end-of-the-world types who have been preparing for doomsday for decades. The same type of people who have had years to lay out elaborate plans involving IEDs, drums full of jellied gasoline and prepared positions? Seriously, there are some very scary people out there. And pulling a stunt like this to try and take what they view as their ultimate defense against whatever boogyman they have dreamed up will not go over well. Forget the costs of going to court. Forget the costs of compensating gun owners. Think about the costs of running a few operations like this in terms of political capital. It would be political suicide to be the one responsible for getting that many cops killed. Not to mention you would have a lot of people in law enforcement who wouldn't be all that keen on running these operations. Especially not after the first few go kaboom in their collective faces.

-Mb

This may be true but I personally wan't to continue to take my AR to the range and to BLM land without it getting confiscated and me going to jail

This may be true but I personally wan't to continue to take my AR to the range and to BLM land without it getting confiscated and me going to jail

That's how it will be enforced in practice: confiscated when found in public, or as part of an arrest for other reasons. They won't need to go door-to-door. and keeping them all hidden and unused is a practical ban, if nothing else.

Bonta graduated with honors from Yale College with a degree in History. Was he asleep that day they covered the 2nd Ammendment?

Nope, he was wide awake and saw an opportunity for mass power. These politicians are not stupid. They know exactly what they're trying to do.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Even Dianne Feinstein recognizes that lawfully possessed weapons must be allowed registration. This bill is a no go right from the start and an injunction is almost a certainty. Existing case law has been established in 1989, 1999, and subsequently for LEO registration. Being that civilians were included in 1989 and 1999 you not only have 14th amendment issues but equal protection issues as well.

I agree that that AB174 will lose in the courts in the long run, but it seems they'll be making things difficult for us for a while. There might even be arrests, confiscations, etc. that occur from simple traffic stops because cops will be confused.

That's how it will be enforced in practice: confiscated when found in public, or as part of an arrest for other reasons. They won't need to go door-to-door. and keeping them all hidden and unused is a practical ban, if nothing else.

Yup.

And as lawyer Don Kilmer once said to me (approx.), ~70%ish of AW busts he's seen are 'domestic',
and not related to traffic stops.

That doesn't mean 'domestic violence'; that means there are just a ton of perfectly legal reasons cops
can end up in your home even without a warrant - everything from fire, to unstable elderly person, to
your kid getting in some trouble, to your cat dialling 911 [or you getting "swatted" by someone that
can play with ANI on a PBX.]

And occupants other than you may end up consenting for house to be searched.

__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life memberNo postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, areto be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Netownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

In 1924 there were people who legally possessed heroin. That year, the Feds made possession of heroin a felony. Those people were not compensated for their loss.

What "loss?" I doubt anything was actually taken from anyone just because the law kicked in. The guys who had coke and other drugs sitting around after the date it became illegal, probably just snorted it all then were arrested when they went looking for more. I doubt the feds sent DEA agents to kick down every door in the nation to look for now-illegal narcotics. That would have been a grievous violation of the 4th Amendment, if nothing else.

The guns are a completely different species, as has been pointed out. The analogy isn't "exact," it's terrible.

I agree that that AB174 will lose in the courts in the long run, but it seems they'll be making things difficult for us for a while. There might even be arrests, confiscations, etc. that occur from simple traffic stops because cops will be confused.

No. When the bill gets close to passage, someone will sue the state and an injunction will be issued on the day it goes into effect, which effectively blocks enforcement until it gets sorted out in court. That's exactly what happened with AB962, the ban on mail-order handgun ammo.

What "loss?" I doubt anything was actually taken from anyone just because the law kicked in.

Then we shouldn't care if guns are made illegal because, as you say, there's no loss if your property is made valueless because of risk of incarceration or because you can't sell or devise it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylarz

The guys who had coke and other drugs sitting around after the date it became illegal, probably just snorted it all

Whether or not you've lost value in a property ban depends on whether that property is durable? If we banned, say, cabbages, cabbage sellers haven't lost anything because their cabbages were going to go bad anyway?

Oaths of office should be revised to include acknowledgment of the penalties for breaching the oath.

"I do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and hereby submit to a sentence of no less than 99 years in federal pound-me-in-the-*** prison should I fail to adhere to these terms I do so swear"...etc.

Whether or not you've lost value in a property ban depends on whether that property is durable? If we banned, say, cabbages, cabbage sellers haven't lost anything because their cabbages were going to go bad anyway?

Actually, yes. A cabbage would probably go bad long before the police got around to picking them up. Your analogy stunk. Nobody's coke got confiscated by police going door to door in 1924. That's not how it happened.

You're determined to make your point, aren't you? I'm - what - the third guy you've had to go around and around with?

Look, I'm not here to defend this awful bill. I think it's yet another unacceptable infringement on our rights. Like you, I'm tired of having things criminalized and effectively taken away from me (which, as someone said, is what having to hide it or store it in another state effectively does anyway), when I've never done anything to anyone in my entire life.

Tell you what - IF this passes into law, why don't we let the lawyers at SAF and NRA argue whether the "ex post facto" prohibition truly applies? (Good idea to donate money to them, actually.) I doubt any of us here have the training to figure it out on our own - ultimately it's going to be for a judge to figure out.

Another example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses and on subjects of restraining orders (which do not require criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to ten years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether the weapon was legally possessed when the law was passed.[14] Among those whom the law is claimed to have affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse in connection with a spanking of his child, because anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive; it is a status offense.

The mentioned decision was by the 5th circuit court of appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Interestingly, the court ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but that right was not violated by the law in question.

Sure they can, as the gentleman before you points out, they have your name and address and 2 armed public servants will be over at 5pm to collect them from you so you do not put yourself in a situation where you are committing a felony

Actually, yes. A cabbage would probably go bad long before the police got around to picking them up. Your analogy stunk. Nobody's coke got confiscated by police going door to door in 1924. That's not how it happened.

You're determined to make your point, aren't you? I'm - what - the third guy you've had to go around and around with?

Look, I'm not here to defend this awful bill. I think it's yet another unacceptable infringement on our rights. Like you, I'm tired of having things criminalized and effectively taken away from me (which, as someone said, is what having to hide it or store it in another state effectively does anyway), when I've never done anything to anyone in my entire life.

Tell you what - IF this passes into law, why don't we let the lawyers at SAF and NRA argue whether the "ex post facto" prohibition truly applies? (Good idea to donate money to them, actually.) I doubt any of us here have the training to figure it out on our own - ultimately it's going to be for a judge to figure out.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the range.

If the bill passed and then NRA and SAF will fight for us, in the mean time, CA DOJ are going to come to our door and take our guns away. I don't think I would stand for this. I just don't know what my next option is.

People, lets say they start taking guns away at doorsteps, for the sake of conversation. This info would be quickly posted on this site. How long till everyone that checks this site regularly will either get their guns out of dodge and stand and wait ready and prepared? How long till the most dangerous job in the universe was to collect peoples guns at their homes? Cops or whoever is enlisted to do this hapless job will soon realize that life is more important than a paycheck. This won't happen this way. People would die on both sides.

Any banned weapon can be seized when a LEO sees it, the owner brought up on charges. The state can go after those who have registered, as it has the time, but you cannot use a banned weapon, even for a lawful purpose, without facing charges yourself.

This has another dimension. Since you are now a criminal, you will be reluctant to discuss what you have with others. You will be reluctant to travel with the banned weapon, lest an ordinary traffic issue turn into felony charges and seizure. You are guilty, which will color any interaction with LEO's, not knowing what they know or don't.

This tends to isolate people from each other. It makes planning for emergencies more difficult, the formation of a militia in response to any significant threat harder. You are somewhat immobilized, and develop ditrust in LEO's or any government rep. Having someone do work in your home may be problematic for the amount of space you have to conceal "bad stuff".

Damage is done to the fabric of society, and the hold of government increased.

Since government can't get them all, when they do find someone, an example will be made, to the fullest extent of law and the imagination of a prosecutor. They'll examine your dog to find out if they can add sodomy to the writ. You can bet any family members they can get to will have their homes tossed, in case they are accomplices.

A thread full of rampant speculation, circular logic, uncertainty, hysteria, and panic, serves no one. At this point, when a legislator can propose any impractical law, such as requiring sunrise to occur at a state regulated time, it is enough to use the links to state opposition to the proposal.

Unless my math is incorrect round about 1,000,000 PDW's out there not counting other evil guns. If the gave a measly $100/PDW that would be $100,000,000.00 not to mention the man hours necessary to carry it out. Where would that come from? They don't have enough $$ to go after known felons that they know are in possession of firearms.